ORLANDO, Fla. — Former astronaut Lisa Nowak didn’t wear diapers during her 950-mile road trip to confront a romantic rival, her lawyer said Friday, disputing one of the more bizarre details to emerge from the NASA love triangle.
“The biggest lie in this preposterous tale that has been told is that my client drove from Houston, Texas, to Orlando, Florida, nonstop, wearing a diaper,” Donald Lykkebak said after filing motions to suppress evidence in Nowak’s criminal case. “That is an absolute fabrication.”
There were toddler-size diapers in her car when she was arrested, but they were several years old, Lykkebak said. Nowak and her family had used them when Houston was evacuated in 2005 during Hurricane Rita, he said.
Lykkebak waited until after he had taken a deposition from the police officer — the interview was Thursday — to dispute the statement about the diapers in the police report, said Marti Mackenzie, a spokeswoman for the defense attorney.
| That was the hottest part of the story for the press and TV comedians. |
Stories are immense motivators of action. In this case someone involved in the investigation inputted the diaper tidbit. It was obviously someone with high EQ who sought to lessen the crime of passion by introducing an humiliating aspect to it. There is more compassion for Lisa because of the diaper-wearing part. The mind automatically has a tendency to forgive children and not adults, hence a link between Nowak and an innocent baby.
Another example of this was on 9/11 when George W. Bush who had advanced knowledge of the attacks was setup to be in a class of innocent children. How can anyone question Bush’s inaction if he was trying to protect a classroom of harmless children– the nation didn’t matter, the innocent little children did. Automatically, the story creators of 9/11 put Bush in linked-memory module of your mind the connection between Bush that day with children. Unconsciously you cannot blame him for that day for anything that occured.
Stories are incredibly powerful.
“Nowak and her family had used them when Houston was evacuated in 2005 during Hurricane Rita, he said.”
…so, he’s saying that she (and her family) does indeed sometimes wear diapers when on a long car trip — just not on this specific long car trip.
Good thing I trusted my intuition and passed when invited to join the Nowaks on this year’s cross-country summer car trip to Wallyworld.
#2 – No shit!
What possible difference does this make in respect to the criminal charges? Her attorney better worry about the prosecution and not public relations. She’s already been tried and convicted in that venue.
She was wearing a diaper. And now she’s a big baby and wants to cry about it.
I smell a deformation of character lawsuit coming… Only in America!
#0 –
“Former astronaut Lisa Nowak didn’t wear diapers during her 950-mile road trip to confront a romantic rival, her lawyer said…”
Well, that’s certainly good enough for me.
It was Nowak herself who told the police she wore diapers. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, at least one soiled diaper was found in her car.
I think her lawyer is making a mistake to spend time attacking such an unimportant aspect of her case. His attention should be on the evidence that she intended to seriously assault or kill her victim.
It’s called a diversion.
I’ll bet there was a skid mark involved.
Once again we have the police and prosecution trying to slant public opinion. The lawyer claims this isn’t a correct statement yet seven people above all posted something derogatory about this. Gee, whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”. Oh right, my bad. That only happens if you play Lacrosse for Duke. Everyone else is automatically guilty on the evidence the police give out.
*
#1, Damn you are screwed up. Don’t look under your bed, there may be some part of a conspiracy there.
Fusion, you flaming dork.
The Duke lacrosse team was assumed to be – correctly, I might point out – innocent, because there was not only no evidence that they had done this thing, there was even more evidence that they did NOT.
Ms. Nowak, OTOH, clearly and obviously did what she stands accused of. Her actions are not in dispute. She is not denying that she traveled from Houston to Orlando, nor does she deny her confronting of the ‘other woman’ in the middle of the night in the airport parking lot.
Therefore, you are comparing crabapples to pomegranates – she is as obviously guilty as they were obviously innocent.
“The lawyer claims this isn’t a correct statement…”
Jeebus X, are you the most gullible sumbitch between Venus and Mars. I would like to refer you to my previous remark on this very aspect of the instant case;
“”…, her lawyer said…”
Well, that’s certainly good enough for me.”
That is something you apparently are unfamiliar with; it is known as sarcasm.
The point is that, as most English-speaking people over 10 years of age already know, lawyers, you will no doubt be shocked to learn, actually say untrue things on behalf of their clients!
…or to put it more directly, in case my meaning, like so much else, escapes you: Her lawyer said such-and-such. SO THE FUCK WHAT?? Who in their right mind takes a defense lawyer’s words at face value? Answer: no one.
…and BTW, you’ve been told already; if you want to presume someone’s innocence, despite clear-cut, patently obvious guilt, then feel free to do so. The judge and jury – and the press – are obliged to presume she’s innocent. Show me the law that says private citizens are obliged to do the same.
Dork.
This is from the article:
“Nowak has pleaded not guilty and her trial is set for September. She was dismissed from the astronaut corps a month after her arrest.
Oefelein was dismissed from the corps at the beginning of June.
Lykkebak filed a motion asking a judge to prevent statements that Nowak made to police from being entered into evidence, claiming she had not been properly advised of her constitutional rights.
The defense attorney also asked to have a transcript of the police interview sealed from the public, contending the media would use it for entertainment value and taint potential jurors.
Circuit Judge Marc Lubet said he wanted Lykkebak to present more case law supporting his argument before he would issue a ruling. The judge said such an order might be futile since prosecutors likely were going to bring up aspects from the transcript during hearings.
Lykkebak also asked that evidence found in Nowak’s car not be allowed to be introduced in court, saying it was seized without a search warrant. Police officers recovered maps to Shipman’s home, large garbage bags, latex gloves and Shipman’s flight information. ”
The map and flight info. have been acknowledged by the defense attorney, so it goes beyond just what the police said.
It’s unlucky for her, she was caught in Florida. In Califonia, she would already have been found not guilty.
Good luck, Mr. Lykkebak, in digging up precedent for that, considering she wasn’t / isn’t a celebrity.
Plus, they confiscated the evidence incident to a felony arrest, so his motion to exclude ain’t likely to fly either.
But, hey… he gotta work with what he gots.
No taction contact!
#12, Lauren,
What a patent armpit you can be. When the Duke Lacrosse players were charged, the public was handed “evidence” by the police and later the DA’s office that was accepted on its face as true. At the time there was no reason for the public to doubt its veracity. It was only later that some of the evidence presented as true as discovered to be false.
Is the evidence in the public arena true, false, exaggerated, twisted or whatever, we don’t know. But as with your three Duke rapists, when the public opinion becomes distorted through persecutory slanting there is an injustice. If I recall correctly (and I have no intention of checking back for direct quotes) you were very loud about how wrong it was for the public to accuse these fine Duke men of such a terrible thing.
True, there is no law that says you may not form your own opinion. That, however, is the problem here. You formed your opinion on the selected information handed out by the police and DA. Rushing to form a judgment is not an admirable trait. Neither is advertising your right to be stupid.
Me? I’ll wait until the evidence is presented under oath before I make an opinion.
Csn’t we stop with the claim that the Duke lacrosse players were found not guilty? The state chose not to try the case. We don’t know whether they were guilty or innocent. For comparison, William Kennedy Smith was found not guilty of rape.
Again, I think Nowak’s lawyer is wasting his time with this diaper diversion. The worst evidence against her will be the testimony of the victim. That can’t be suppressed. (Not that he will be successful getting the diapers suppressed, either.) Seems to me that he should be aiming for a plea bargain short of attempted murder.
#17 The Dukies were found innocent by the North Carolina D.A.
There is only way to be acquitted: Go to trial and get a verdict by judge or jury finding one not guilty.
To the folks arguing about whether the Duke players were “found innocient”:
Take it from a lawyer, “found innocent”, or more commonly these days “found not guilty” implies a judge or jury made a finding in a trial and that jeopardy attaches and that the individual can never be tried on that charge again. That did not happen in the Duke case. Contrary to what the verbose Lauren the Ghoti states above, The North Carolina Attorney General’s statement that he felt the players were innocent is NOT “legally binding”, and if new evidence were to come to light, he or his successor, or any new holder of the local prosecutorial office could reinstitute charges as no event has ever yet caused jeopardy to attach.